New World Handicaps 2020

[Newby]

> @Augustok said:

>

> On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

>

Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

 

[Colin L]

> @Schulzmc said:

> Most of you know a lot more about the system than I do. My question is this - how will the new WHS affect the following situation?

> We have a guy at my club that consistently wins when it matters. Always wins his flight in the member/guest. Wins or places in 5 out of the 6 individual competitions we have each year. Examining his handicap record shows for the last two years his tournament scores have averaged 7.2 strokes better than his regular posted scores. But our handicap committee is at a loss as to what to do, because all his regular scores posted are legit rounds with his friends and others at the club. Either he is purposely missing putts, etc. on a weekly basis in regular rounds to keep his handicap up, or he simply is so clutch he plays better when the pressure is on.

> Would a new handicap system that is based primarily on actual competition scores help in this case? It seems like it would.

 

Any score differential 7 or more strokes lower than the player's Handicap Index in effect when the round was played will result in an automatic 1 stroke reduction. 10 or more strokes lower will result in a 2 stroke deduction.The reduction will be automatically applied in the player's record to the previous 19 score differentials.

 

Will that help?

[James the Hogan Fan]

> @Newby said:

> > @Augustok said:

> >

> > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> >

> Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

>

 

I would expect the workaround to merely be taking the last 20 entered scores as is and just pretending they are correct. Or just start everyone fresh as if they'd never played before. For reasons expounded on earlier, not all US golfers will be able to count back hole scores for the last 20 rounds.

[Newby]

> @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Augustok said:

> > >

> > > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> > >

> > Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

> >

>

> I would expect the workaround to merely be taking the last 20 entered scores as is and just pretending they are correct. Or just start everyone fresh as if they'd never played before. For reasons expounded on earlier, not all US golfers will be able to count back hole scores for the last 20 rounds.

 

Has nothing been published by the USGA about how they intend to do it?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Newby said:

> > @"James the Hogan Fan" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @Augustok said:

> > > >

> > > > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> > > >

> > > Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

> > >

> >

> > I would expect the workaround to merely be taking the last 20 entered scores as is and just pretending they are correct. Or just start everyone fresh as if they'd never played before. For reasons expounded on earlier, not all US golfers will be able to count back hole scores for the last 20 rounds.

>

> Has nothing been published by the USGA about how they intend to do it?

 

Maybe there is a ton of stuff from the USGA out there that I have not seen, but I am not aware of anything new regarding the WHS from the USGA in many months.

 

Entry number 3 from the WHS FAQ page at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/WHS-resources/world-handicap-system--frequently-asked-questions.html strongly implies that they will just be importing old scoring data and using that as is. I don't even know if the scoring records kept by GHIN (or Golfnet) even retain hole by hole scores if entered.

 

dave

 

_3. How will existing handicaps be used for the World Handicap System? Also, is my handicap expected to change when the system goes live?

 

Existing scoring records will be retained and, where possible, be used to calculate a handicap under the WHS. For most players, their handicap will change only slightly as they will be coming from systems which are generally similar to the WHS. However, this will be dependent on many factors – including the number of scores available upon which the calculation of a handicap can be based. National Associations are being encouraged to communicate this message to clubs and golfers, i.e. that the more scores available in the scoring record at the time of transition, the less impact golfers will feel on their handicap.

__

 

[Augster]

Everything I’ve seen from the USGA is that they’ll use the current scoring record then go 8/20 for the new caps. I haven’t read anything about hole by hole scoring for the USGA, but I imagine they’d come around to it if the app would support it and the ROTW was doing it.

 

The cap is going to change daily. Much like a lot of places.

[DaveLeeNC]

Here is an interesting anecdote regarding issues surrounding hole by hole posting.

 

Course No. 5 at Pinehurst is going to experience 3 different hole configurations over a period of about 4 weeks. Course 3 and 5 both start 'across the street from the clubhouse'. Apparently it was decided that the existing crossing was a safety risk, so they moved that crossing a couple hundred yards down the road and changed the starting holes for courses 3 and 5. There was only one logical choice for No 3 but you could make No. 5 work by starting on the old hole #2 or old hole #18. So they ended up trying both, resulting in multiple hole assignment changes.

 

Just kind of interesting how sometimes the real world presents problems that most would not have expected.

 

dave

 

Ps. This also presents a similar issue WRT 9 hole scores.

[Colin L]

What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

[mark m]

> @Schulzmc said:

> Most of you know a lot more about the system than I do. My question is this - how will the new WHS affect the following situation?

> We have a guy at my club that consistently wins when it matters. Always wins his flight in the member/guest. Wins or places in 5 out of the 6 individual competitions we have each year. Examining his handicap record shows for the last two years his tournament scores have averaged 7.2 strokes better than his regular posted scores. But our handicap committee is at a loss as to what to do, because all his regular scores posted are legit rounds with his friends and others at the club. Either he is purposely missing putts, etc. on a weekly basis in regular rounds to keep his handicap up, or he simply is so clutch he plays better when the pressure is on.

> Would a new handicap system that is based primarily on actual competition scores help in this case? It seems like it would.

 

Please post more info regarding his "legit rounds with friends". Do they have a game / play for money in these non-tournament rounds?

The HC at my club has adjusted numerous players over the years where the situation was similar. Guys were winning or placing high in club tournments way too often. Their 'T' scores were often all their best scores/differentials in their scoring record. Just about all admitted they focused better ("tournament player" or whatever) in tournaments and they typically admitted to not trying as hard in non-tournament rounds. Which breaks the first premise of the entire system - "to try your best in all rounds" - so we disregarded the non-tournament rounds and calculated a new Index based on the scores from competitions. It could be your HC lacks courage(?) This is why some clubs have used Knuth points.

Going forward, if 'T' scores are no longer in the mix, it will create more work for some clubs here is the US as they will want to track the scores from competitions by date on separate spread sheet. And it will make it very tough for Committees running net tournaments with outsiders like members guests. pro-ams, or regional or state events.

One of the best things about the GHIN app is the opportunity to examine the scoring record and compare the 'T' score record to the other choices - handicap history, his most recent 20, and so on.

 

EDIT: instead of a 'T' score record, perhaps the new WHS GHIN app will insert a "memory" page showing a player's best 10 differentials from the past 3 years, or 5 years, or something like that? That would be helpful if T scores are going away.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

 

The 9 hole ratings and slopes change when (for example) the course suddenly starts on hole #2. So I assume that if you end up playing holes 2 thru 10, the player has to somehow figure out what is in the system and make adjustments (or not) depending. If no adjustments have yet been made do you make inquiries about the proper slope rating, take strokes plus par on hole 1, etc.

 

dave

 

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

>

> The 9 hole ratings and slopes change when (for example) the course suddenly starts on hole #2. So I assume that if you end up playing holes 2 thru 10, the player has to somehow figure out what is in the system and make adjustments (or not) depending. If no adjustments have yet been made do you make inquiries about the proper slope rating, take strokes plus par on hole 1, etc.

>

> dave

>

Thanks, Dave. That situation would not occur here. A 9 hole score has to be made on a measured course and if one of the holes was out of use, you could not return a score for handicapping purposes. Under the WHS, CONGU has opted to keep to this and require all 9 holes of a 9 hole course to be played for an acceptable score.

[Colin L]

Sorry - duplicated the previous post.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

> >

> > The 9 hole ratings and slopes change when (for example) the course suddenly starts on hole #2. So I assume that if you end up playing holes 2 thru 10, the player has to somehow figure out what is in the system and make adjustments (or not) depending. If no adjustments have yet been made do you make inquiries about the proper slope rating, take strokes plus par on hole 1, etc.

> >

> > dave

> >

> Thanks, Dave. That situation would not occur here. A 9 hole score has to be made on a measured course and if one of the holes was out of use, you could not return a score for handicapping purposes. Under the WHS, CONGU has opted to keep to this and require all 9 holes of a 9 hole course to be played for an acceptable score.

 

Colin, in this case the hole was not out of play, just out of order. And you could argue that it is not even out of order as it was the system that was wrong. In the USGA system the data to rate and slope the "new nines" exists, but is not readily available to just anyone.

 

dave

[CaseyC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

>

> Colin, in this case the hole was not out of play, just out of order. And you could argue that it is not even out of order as it was the system that was wrong. In the USGA system the data to rate and slope the "new nines" exists, but is not readily available to just anyone.

>

> dave

 

I think this can be handled better with the new system as it includes Abnormal Course Conditions and Weather Conditions adjustments

 

 

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

> > >

> > > The 9 hole ratings and slopes change when (for example) the course suddenly starts on hole #2. So I assume that if you end up playing holes 2 thru 10, the player has to somehow figure out what is in the system and make adjustments (or not) depending. If no adjustments have yet been made do you make inquiries about the proper slope rating, take strokes plus par on hole 1, etc.

> > >

> > > dave

> > >

> > Thanks, Dave. That situation would not occur here. A 9 hole score has to be made on a measured course and if one of the holes was out of use, you could not return a score for handicapping purposes. Under the WHS, CONGU has opted to keep to this and require all 9 holes of a 9 hole course to be played for an acceptable score.

>

> Colin, in this case the hole was not out of play, just out of order. And you could argue that it is not even out of order as it was the system that was wrong. In the USGA system the data to rate and slope the "new nines" exists, but is not readily available to just anyone.

>

> dave

 

You've lost me there. If your measured 9 hole course is holes 1 to 9, playing holes 2 through to 10 isn't the same course no matter what order played in. I think we must be talking about very different situations.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > What's the issue with 9 hole scores, Dave?

> > > >

> > > > The 9 hole ratings and slopes change when (for example) the course suddenly starts on hole #2. So I assume that if you end up playing holes 2 thru 10, the player has to somehow figure out what is in the system and make adjustments (or not) depending. If no adjustments have yet been made do you make inquiries about the proper slope rating, take strokes plus par on hole 1, etc.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > > >

> > > Thanks, Dave. That situation would not occur here. A 9 hole score has to be made on a measured course and if one of the holes was out of use, you could not return a score for handicapping purposes. Under the WHS, CONGU has opted to keep to this and require all 9 holes of a 9 hole course to be played for an acceptable score.

> >

> > Colin, in this case the hole was not out of play, just out of order. And you could argue that it is not even out of order as it was the system that was wrong. In the USGA system the data to rate and slope the "new nines" exists, but is not readily available to just anyone.

> >

> > dave

>

> You've lost me there. If your measured 9 hole course is holes 1 to 9, playing holes 2 through to 10 isn't the same course no matter what order played in. I think we must be talking about very different situations.

 

Colin, the (9 hole) course was holes 1-9 until the club ('the committee' for general play) decided it was 2 - 10. When the USGA rates a course each hole gets its own slope and rating #'s. The course slope and rating is a simple combination of the hole ratings/slopes. So the 9 hole rating and slope on holes 2 through 10 is as well established as it is on holes 1-9. While it is a different course, there is nothing but simple arithmetic left to determine the new slopes and ratings.

 

This same course once played as a 17 hole course for a couple of weeks (to accommodate the US Open). It was a trivial matter to establish a 17 hole slope and rating, and that is how it was played and posted in that period.

 

dave

[Colin L]

Thanks. I've not heard any hint of such a degree of flexibility being adopted here in the future and will have to get my head round the concept of a slope rating for individual holes!

[CaseyC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks. I've not heard any hint of such a degree of flexibility being adopted here in the future and will have to get my head round the concept of a slope rating for individual holes!

 

From the R&A site:

 

 

_Abnormal Course and Weather Conditions Adjustment

Golf is an outdoor sport and not always played in ideal conditions. The new system will consider the impact of daily course or weather conditions on each golfer’s performance. Such adjustments will be conservative and will only be made when there is clear evidence that an adjustment is warranted._

 

I would suggest this could be used in this situation

[DaveLeeNC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > Thanks. I've not heard any hint of such a degree of flexibility being adopted here in the future and will have to get my head round the concept of a slope rating for individual holes!

>

> From the R&A site:

>

>

> _Abnormal Course and Weather Conditions Adjustment

> Golf is an outdoor sport and not always played in ideal conditions. The new system will consider the impact of daily course or weather conditions on each golfer’s performance. Such adjustments will be conservative and will only be made when there is clear evidence that an adjustment is warranted._

>

> I would suggest this could be used in this situation

 

What that would do is to give the system a 'time dependent' capability (necessary for this issue). And the problem could probably be solved in this manner.

 

When we cut courses 3 and 5 to 17 holes we were a Golfnet (not Ghin) state. And the Golfnet software had no way to allow a course to have 2 slopes/ratings (like one before date X and a different one on or after date X). The software just assumed that the SINGLE slope/rating in the system was the correct one on the date that you posted (regardless of when the round was played).

 

I was surprised to learn that this was the case - it seemed pretty short sighted to me and a proper solution is hardly complicated. I have no idea if Ghin is able to look at the date a round was played and find the course data that matches that date.

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Newby said:

> > @Augustok said:

> >

> > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> >

> Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

>

 

This will only impact handicap indices 10 and higher. ESC = NDB for single digits and lower. Still the majority of US golfers would be slightly impacted until they accumulated enough scores.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Augustok said:

> > >

> > > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> > >

> > Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

> >

>

> This will only impact handicap indices 10 and higher. ESC = NDB for single digits and lower. Still the majority of US golfers would be slightly impacted until they accumulated enough scores.

 

FWIW, ESC = NDB is only true for scratch golfers (CH = 0). E.G., a golfer with a CH of 9 can only post a net bogey on the 9 lowest handicapped holes. This always seemed too generous to me (and the idea of posting a 7 on an easy par 3 for a 12 CH golfer seemed wrong for the opposite reason).

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @Augustok said:

> > > >

> > > > On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.

> > > >

> > > Those players coming from a CONGU system (or EGA I guess) will have their last 20 recorded scores processed against the new WHS formula to determine their new WHS handicap. This will be be relatively straightforward as all hole scores are available so net double bogey is automatically available. I have no idea how total adjusted gross will be processed in North America if the hole score is not known.

> > >

> >

> > This will only impact handicap indices 10 and higher. ESC = NDB for single digits and lower. Still the majority of US golfers would be slightly impacted until they accumulated enough scores.

>

> FWIW, ESC = NDB is only true for scratch golfers (CH = 0). E.G., a golfer with a CH of 9 can only post a net bogey on the 9 lowest handicapped holes. This always seemed too generous to me (and the idea of posting a 7 on an easy par 3 for a 12 CH golfer seemed wrong for the opposite reason).

>

> dave

 

Duh. Yes. Silly me. Nevermind all.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks. I've not heard any hint of such a degree of flexibility being adopted here in the future and will have to get my head round the concept of a slope rating for individual holes!

 

Colin, slope is really pretty simple. The fact that the USGA system normalizes things to 113 kind of hides that simplicity. But to find the slope of a course, just take the bogey rating and subtract the course rating. Then multiply that by 5.381 (which is 113 divided by 21 - a bogey golfer's handicap). This works for a whole course or just a single hole. But what this is really about is CR and Bogey Rating - that is where the real assessment lives.

 

dave

[Colin L]

Thanks Dave, I do understand slope. Just haven't had to think about it on a single hole basis.

I'm sure there is good reason for the norm being 113, but I'm not going to find it easy to explain the reason for it and may, when asked, just use the easy cop-out of "It is what it is."

[North Butte]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks Dave, I do understand slope. Just haven't had to think about it on a single hole basis.

> I'm sure there is good reason for the norm being 113, but I'm not going to find it easy to explain the reason for it and may, when asked, just use the easy cop-out of "It is what it is."

 

113 is the norm because the system was designed by geeks in love with using arbitrary, confusing numbers just to remind the world how clever they are. There was no attempt whatsoever to make the system understandable to normals.

[Newby]

_When Dean Knuth, the father of the Course and Slope Rating system and a USGA official first went about compiling statistical data as a basis for its development, he found that the USGA data, indicated that for each one stroke increase in handicap index, the actual average score would increase by 1.13 strokes statistically. (Since handicaps are designed to mostly show a player’s potential instead of his average score, this number is logically higher, since worse players produce a broader spread of scores, while expert players will remain within a smaller margin)._

 

_Hence the 1.13 factor was defined as the average difficulty in the system at the time and the 113 has thus entered the handicap formula._

 

_In fact the actual average Slope Rating these days is more north of 120 to 130, since most course designers would rather target higher Slope Ratings for marketability._

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> _When Dean Knuth, the father of the Course and Slope Rating system and a USGA official first went about compiling statistical data as a basis for its development, he found that the USGA data, indicated that for each one stroke increase in handicap index, the actual average score would increase by 1.13 strokes statistically. (Since handicaps are designed to mostly show a player’s potential instead of his average score, this number is logically higher, since worse players produce a broader spread of scores, while expert players will remain within a smaller margin)._

>

> _Hence the 1.13 factor was defined as the average difficulty in the system at the time and the 113 has thus entered the handicap formula._

>

> _In fact the actual average Slope Rating these days is more north of 120 to 130, since most course designers would rather target higher Slope Ratings for marketability._

 

Exactly. That's what I was referring to.

 

Note especially the completely off-topic "...target higher Slope Ratings for marketability..." whinge. As if Knuth were some sort of course design or golf marketing savant. What a goober.

 

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> 113 is the norm because the system was designed by geeks in love with using arbitrary, confusing numbers just to remind the world how clever they are. There was no attempt whatsoever to make the system understandable to normals.

.

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > _When Dean Knuth, the father of the Course and Slope Rating system and a USGA official first went about compiling statistical data as a basis for its development, he found that the USGA data, indicated that for each one stroke increase in handicap index, the actual average score would increase by 1.13 strokes statistically. (Since handicaps are designed to mostly show a player’s potential instead of his average score, this number is logically higher, since worse players produce a broader spread of scores, while expert players will remain within a smaller margin)._

> >

> > _Hence the 1.13 factor was defined as the average difficulty in the system at the time and the 113 has thus entered the handicap formula._

> >

> > _In fact the actual average Slope Rating these days is more north of 120 to 130, since most course designers would rather target higher Slope Ratings for marketability._

>

> Exactly. That's what I was referring to.

>

Wait. You first say the system was designed to be incomprehensible, using arbitrary confusing numbers. Then when shown that the number was chosen for a specific and logical reason, you claim that proves your point? Every handicap system, whether CONGU or Australia or USGA, has to rely on some arbitrary choices, there's no single clear obvious right way to do it.

 

 

[North Butte]

If a course has a course rating of 70.2 and a slope rating of 124 then the numbers actually being used to calculate a person's course handicap are:

 

70.2

1.10 (124 divided by 113)

 

Why would you not describe the computation by saying a person's Course Handicap is 70.2 + 1.10 times their index?

 

By telling people they are supposed to include a magic number of 113 as a divisor, you imply that 113 has some actual meaning. Which it does not, it is simply an artifact a curve-fitting exercise Knuth did with a convenience sample decades ago.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, or read in some magazine article (remember golf magazines?) that "113" represents the average difficulty of a golf course. Literally those words, usually. "Average difficulty". When in fact it does not express the "difficulty" in the first place nor is it an average of actual golf courses.

 

It leads to people judging courses by their slope rating, with the understanding that any course higher than 113 slope rating is more difficult than average. Why did he introduce a meaningless number that was absolutely certain to be mis-interpreted? I have no idea beyond the fact they he was given carte blanche to make things are opaque and confusing as possible so he did.

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> By telling people they are supposed to include a magic number of 113 as a divisor, you imply that 113 has some actual meaning. Which it does not, it is simply an artifact a curve-fitting exercise Knuth did with a convenience sample decades ago.

 

http://popeofslope.com/magazine/aver_rating.html